In 2013 I published this observation on illegal immigration and what can be done about it. It is interesting to see how things have transpired since. Instead of opting for one of my suggestions, that of a North American Union, something similar to a European Union with NAFTA as the economic framework, the country is proceeding towards the other option, an emplacement of what amounts to a fortification. I don’t want to say I predicted the recent events, but…

from June 1, 2013

A co-worker of mine asked me rather indirectly to address the matter of illegal immigration in the United States. I’ve been putting it off.

So I’ll get right to the point. We only have two choices really. Either seal off the border and do it right…or we will have to implement a European Union type solution.

Already with NAFTA (North American Free Tree Agreement) we are trading amongst North American countries for all practical purposes tariff free. Because of NAFTA, which of course devastated the job market in The United States, the framework is already there for a North American Union of some type. Our industry profits from the close proximity of foreign countries but the citizenry pays thoroughly in the form of taxes for benefits obtained by illegal immigrants while industry covers none of those costs, AND at the same time our citizenry endures loss of employment as jobs leave for both our southern and northern borders yet the citizen still pays in the form of taxes for the benefits obtained by illegals. Again, industry gets off scott-free.

Let me say right now I see no reason why industry should benefit from such an arrangement while the citizenry should suffer so drastically, not only in terms of high taxes to cover the cost of benefits for illegals or a loss of jobs, adding also the massive cost to man the border.

Therefor I believe there are really only two solutions. Either seal off the border completely, do it right, and leave it at that. Or, create a North American multi-country government much like The European Union. Perhaps all of the countries who are governed or chartered within NAFTA could be members of The North American Union. The one sticking point with that is that the dollar is worth so much more than all of the other currencies and backs so much more in terms of value, capital, and liquidity, that in order to have a North American Union, you would have to have a North American currency. You could call it “The Americana” instead of the dollar, or something to that effect. But I don’t know if that is advisable.

England joined the EU but kept its currency, which has turned out to be a wise choice as it has not seen such a devaluation as the Euro nor has it suffered continual, repeated and spasmodic economic crises.

So there you have it. That’s the way I see it. To date estimates to man the border range from $100 Billion dollars to $250 Billion dollars. In 2011 the average annual salary of a Customs and Border Patrol Officer was $75,000. In 2012 there were an estimated 21,394 agents. They of course have support teams and there are most certainly office staff to perhaps a larger extent. Just the cost of manning the border with little or no effect is tremendous. The logistical costs must be incredible. I could find no information as to that expense. So, not only is the issue one of taxation to pay for the benefits of illegal immigrants and the loss of jobs due to NAFTA, there is a tremendous cost to man the border.

We really only have two choices. To leave the matter without a solution much longer would of course be typical of Washington.

Without a solution our southern border is just a sieve for terrorism, illicit trafficking, and a wound bleeding tax dollars to the south. So, a North American Union type solution would mean no more costs to maintain a so-called “secure border.”

Of course there is one other solution which I believe is not advisable at this time. You can guess what that is and we will just leave it at that.

More on why I believe the country has chosen to proceed with the construction of a wall rather than with the idea of a North American Union later.

Personally I don’t believe the incoming administration is going to be as conservative as the media and all of the left wingers would have the country believe.

Already the Washington elite have begun hacking away at Trump’s campaign positions. A softening of just about every position he had during the campaign, that which put him where he is in the first place, appears inevitable. He will be made to realize that his ideas were (as in past tense), “a bit too much.”

Trump’s Tweets have even become less terse, more diplomatic. Though less profound in Trump’s case, it is clear that what everyone feared would happen is in fact happening. President-elect Trump is being brought into the political fold he fought so valiantly against during the campaign.

I think instead it is quite possible that you will see a great deal of the real legislative and perhaps “physical” activism rise out of the House and Senate, both populated by a majority of Republicans after the election, something nobody predicted, also.

Yet the massive political shifting doesn’t stop at the federal level. Well over 40 states now have elected Republican governors and Republican majorities in the house and senate.

So what’s next for conservatives?

Opportunity. Opportunity like conservatives have never seen before at the national level to the local.

Though I don’t entirely equate conservatism with Republicanism directly, and I’ve written to that effect before, if there ever were a time for conservatives to activate and incentivize the elected in their favor, now is that time. There is in fact no time to waste.

With Clinton winning the popular vote during this election, there may not be another ‘what’s next for conservatives?” like this one, for some time or even ever.

All those estimated millions of people who said they were going to leave the country if Trump were elected are still here. I don’t see a massive exodus happening anywhere, do you?

This is a reprint from 2015. I’m just reprinting it because I think it has a certain contemporary significance to it.

Last year one of my favorite sports personalities came clean about his use of “performance enhancing drugs.” It was a big deal in the media.

To me what was really disturbing about the episode, though, was not so much that he used steroids, or whatever he was using, but that almost immediately a regional convenience store and gasoline chain dropped its endorsement of the guy.

At first I suppose you could say, “Well, I guess he had it coming to him.”

But at the time the price of gasoline was well over $3 a gallon, closer to $4 a gallon, and it had remained at that level for several years.

It occurred to me that the convenience store chain’s move to drop their endorsement of the guy was a bit hypocritical.

Here they were raising the price of gasoline when someone sneezed in a foreign country or when the weather changed one way or the other (they used both as excuses), or when there was a tropical storm in some other part of the world, or when one single fuel truck somewhere ran off the road, or when some politician was caught for infidelity, or when some little war somewhere flared up, or when the seasons changed, or when there was a holiday and people were traveling, or when global warming was announced, then climate change, then it was determined that global warming might not happen, then only when climate change happened some times, then when baby boomers started retiring, when some volcano somewhere fired up, when it flooded somewhere, when there was a drought, when it snowed, when it rained, when the sun was shining, on cloudy days, when birds started migrating, when the birds returned, and the list goes on and on.

Here and everywhere else the gasoline station/convenience store chain was giving it pretty thoroughly to everyone up the you know what along with all of the others who sell gasoline and totally mucking up the economy, eating up everyone’s discretionary income, and THEY, yes THEY were dropping the endorsement of some guy who used performance enhancing drugs so he looked a little better on the field.

I tell you what!

Why don’t they take the ethanol out of my gasoline because that definitely doesn’t enhance the performance of my car and it is driving up the cost of food, too. Why don’t they stop adding water to the gasoline? That would help, particularly at this time of year. And take all of those varnish type solutions out of the gasoline so I can store it for a couple of years like I used to be able to do. If you ask me, America’s fuel supply could use some “performance enhancements” itself, particularly now that the price of gasoline though down recently is going right back up.

Needless to stay I stopped buying my gasoline from that convenience store chain.

This is a reprint from 2012. The reason I’m reprinting it is that following the recent presidential election, suddenly people started reading it again as if they were seeking it out.

Recently in the news the subject of America being The World’s Police Force came up again and something occurred to me about the matter. And this really only pertains to the capacity of our military in reference to a “police force.”

Since due to its force structure The United States is really the only country eminently capable of handling military activity around the world, it would seem then that by default The United States should be “The World’s Police Force.” You would think it should almost be automatic.

The problem with that sentiment, and it is a good one, is that it costs a lot of money.

Ordinarily police are paid for with local, state, and federal tax dollars. And they work within the borders of our country so the costs associated with the police traveling to and from police calls is limited to the geographical area within which taxes are originated for their employment.

Once you start sending so-called “police forces” outside of The United States, they begin policing in an area where no taxes are accumulated for their efforts. In other words, they are working for free at the cost of The US taxpayer.

Now there can be no question that there may be benefits to seeing peace installed in certain areas of the world where US forces intervene, but sometimes, actually, more often lately it would seem, the costs are way beyond the benefits to the American tax payer.

So, the question is raised, how do we pay for such military interventions without bankrupting The American Public? Well, for example, in Iraq I believe we should have somehow acquired at the very least partial rights to the oil reserves, for example. This is just an example, of course, though I believe it would have been suitable compensation for the dollar costs of the war there.

What is important is that as a country The United States doesn’t bankrupt its citizenry running all around the world attempting to quell each and every conflict. At any given time there are somewhere in the vicinity of 150 military actions taking place throughout the world. And unless we are protecting some viable resources of our own, I believe we should proceed with greater caution in the future unless we can insure our efforts will be compensated directly with the express intent of paying for the military action.

Military activity is expensive. I see no reason why The United States should not be able to acquire payment for its efforts. Call it colonialism if you will. It is better than making The American public out to be a bunch of patsies. And they are quite good at doing just that with their public relations campaigns and parades of sympathizers.

Otherwise, often we are really just working, and more importantly sacrificing our sons and daughters, for nothing really. An idea perhaps. But do we really want to keep making such sacrifices for everyone else’s ideas?

The world becomes a smaller and smaller place now. It is one thing to stand by your neighbor. It is another thing entirely to be tricked into accepting his fate.

Copyright 2012, 2016 William Thien

Sign up to receive updates in the upper right hand corner of this page. It is free and safe.